Opinion
570831/03.
Decided April 16, 2004.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered July 9, 2002 (Saliann Scarpulla, J.) which granted the noninsurer defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's cross motion to strike defendants' answers pursuant to CPLR 3126. The insurance company defendants cross-appeal from so much of the aforesaid order as denied their motion to strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.
Order entered July 9, 2002 (Saliann Scarpulla, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J., HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
Plaintiff's scattergun complaint, seeking damages on a wide array of legal theories against any party remotely involved in the issuance of or denial of coverage under the homeowner's insurance policy, was properly dismissed as against the noninsurer defendants. As the motion court properly recognized, plaintiff's conclusory allegations that those defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deny coverage "merely evidence plaintiff's dissatisfaction with [the insurance company] defendants' performance of the contract obligations." ( New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 319.)
We have considered the parties remaining arguments for affirmative relief, including those raised by the insurance company defendants on their cross appeal, and find them unavailing.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.